New Delhi: The Supreme Court declined to create a uniform national policy for the regularisation and demolition of long-standing unauthorised properties. Instead, the Court said that States and Union Territories should examine the issues raised and consider suitable policy measures based on their local circumstances.
Detailed of Long-Standing Unauthorised Property Demolition Policy Case
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking a uniform policy across India for dealing with long-standing unauthorised constructions.
Read also: Why Has the Supreme Court Issued Notice on Netaji Mortal Remains? Explained
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that different States face different ground realities. The Court said a single policy framework may not be practical for the entire country.
Long-Standing Unauthorised Property Demolition Policy Case: What Was the Petition About
The petition was filed by the Centre for Law and Good Governance. It sought the formation of a court-appointed committee to create uniform guidelines for the regularisation and demolition of old unauthorised constructions across India.
The petitioner argued that States currently follow different approaches, leading to inconsistency in demolition and settlement policies.
Long-Standing Unauthorised Property Demolition Policy Case: Supreme Court’s Key Observation
The Bench stated that policy decisions related to regularisation and demolition primarily fall within the powers of governments and administrative authorities. The Court observed that circumstances vary from State to State and therefore different policy solutions may be required.
According to the Court, it would not be prudent to impose a single national framework on all States.
States Asked to Consider the Issues Raised
While refusing to frame a uniform policy, the Supreme Court said States and Union Territories may consider the concerns highlighted in the petition. The Court expressed hope that competent authorities would review the issues while revising or formulating their policies.
This observation leaves room for governments to address local challenges through appropriate administrative measures.
Concerns Raised by the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that several States have introduced settlement and regularisation schemes for unauthorised colonies. However, it claimed that in some cases demolitions take place suddenly, sometimes without adequate rehabilitation measures for affected families. The petition stressed the need to balance urban planning laws with the rights of residents.
Right to Shelter Discussed During Hearing
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner referred to Supreme Court judgments recognising the importance of shelter and human dignity. The petitioner argued that demolitions should not occur without considering whether residents have access to alternative accommodation.
The Court acknowledged the importance of human rights concerns but maintained that policy-making remains primarily the responsibility of governments.
Long-Standing Unauthorised Property Demolition Policy Case: Supreme Court Highlights Existing Safeguards
The Bench noted that the Supreme Court has already issued directions in previous cases regarding illegal and unauthorised demolitions. CJI Surya Kant observed that persons in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. The Court also referred to earlier rulings requiring notice before demolition in appropriate cases.
Court Rejects Judicial Policy-Making Role
The judges clarified that a court-appointed committee cannot replace the powers of States or municipal authorities responsible for enforcing laws. The Bench stressed that courts cannot enter the policy-making domain of the executive unless required by law. Justice Joymalya Bagchi also noted that such issues often need to be examined individually rather than through a broad nationwide policy.
Read also: CJI Surya Kant Announces Key Judicial Reform: 7-Judge Benches to Be Formed Soon
